Tag Archives: State: California

Gerard Bradley at SCOTUS Blog: The Justices should be wary of the “science” route. Consider just the leading decisions mentioned during the arguments as instructive parallels to the instant cases. Consider, for example, Plessy v. Ferguson. Justice Sotomayor said that the Court let segregation “perk” for fifty years, until the Justices finally pulled the plug in 1954. But the Plessy Court did not wait upon social scientific evidence of the negative effects of segregation, as Sotomayor implied that it did. That Court was instead party to – at best – a sordid compromise with entrenched racist elements in American society.

Advocates of same-sex marriages can’t back up claims about positive long-term effects.

Wall Street Opinion Journal: Editorial board member Joe Rago on the Supreme Court oral testimony on California’s Prop. 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Photo credit: Associated Press.

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: The likely swing vote on this issue of “standing” is Chief Justice John Roberts. Kennedy tipped his hand that he might regard the official sponsors of Prop 8—which the California Supreme Court unanimously held are empowered by the California Constitution to defend the measure in court—as meeting the U.S. Constitution’s requirements for the lawsuit to proceed.

Michael Foust at Baptist Press: Following are commonly asked questions about the Supreme Court’s two days of arguments in the gay marriage cases.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUS Blog: Students of Windsor and Hollingsworth have always recognized a basic tension between the theories of gay-rights advocates in the cases. The challenge to DOMA is undergirded by a sense that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation. The challenge to Proposition 8 is a direct challenge to just such a decision by a state.

LifeSiteNews: Thousands of Americans from all religions, races, and political parties gathered around the nation as the Supreme Court heard the first of two cases concerning the definition of marriage, with two boisterous and sometimes clashing crowds meeting outside the Supreme Court. (see Media Reseach video report here)

Wall Street Journal Video: Proposition 8 co-counselor Austin Nimocks discusses what the gay marriage case in the high court hinges on, and what he thinks are the consequences of the ban getting struck down.

PBS (video and transcript): We return to today’s same-sex marriage debate with one of our own, featuring two attorneys who were at the court today, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who supports overturning the gay marriage ban, and Austin Nimocks, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which supports Proposition 8.

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog: If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence. That was the overriding impression after just under two hours of argument Wednesday on the fate of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Austin R. Nimocks on the Hugh Hewitt Show | MP3 audio 5:36 mins

MSNBC (includes video): The co-counsel for the legal team defending California’s Proposition 8 before the Supreme Court Tuesday, Austin Nimocks, called for the court to “let the American people deal with [the issue of gay marriage] through their democratic institutions.” [more]

Wall Street Journal: One of the odder moments in Tuesday’s Supreme Court arguments over gay marriage came when the justices started talking about the fertility of older people and Justice Antonin Scalia attempted to make a joke about former Sen. Strom Thurmond, who had four children in his late 60s and 70s.

One News Now: Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jim Campbell explains why the case is important to those who hold a traditional view on marriage. “If the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned, it will send the message that the government can no longer affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman,” he laments. “It will essentially say that even though throughout history diverse cultures and faiths have upheld marriage as the ideal, as the union of a man and a woman, it will say that here in America we can no longer do that.”

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: Prop 8 is being defended by Charles Cooper and the Alliance Defending Freedom. On the merits, Cooper began that, “people throughout the country engage in an earnest debate over whether the age-old definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. The question before this Court is whether the Constitution puts a stop to that ongoing democratic debate and answers this question for all fifty states.”

Christian Post: Speaking to Candy Crowley on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Austin Nimocks, vice president of the Alliance Defending Freedom and co-counsel for Proposition 8 supporters, believes the court shouldn’t “impose a redefinition of marriage upon all Americans,” and added that same-sex marriage is not a fundamental right. “Fundamental rights are those that are deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions,” Nimocks said. “Same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions.”

KCENTV.com (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WTKR.com: The Human Rights Campaign Facebook page asked people to wear red and to make their Facebook profiles red to show support for marriage equality . . . “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group.
“We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Alan Sears at Alliance Defending Freedom: This week, and for the next several weeks, I’d like to ask you and your family to be in particular, faithful, fervent prayer for the future of your nation and for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they rule on two major cases related to the legal definition of marriage in America.

Hadley Arkes at NRO: From the back and forth this morning, it appears that the issue of the Supreme Court’s “standing” is not likely to be decisive. Even Justice Kennedy seemed to be concerned to answer that question — and put it out of the way . . . Coming out of the courtroom today, the defenders of marriage were decorously upbeat: One savvy observer thought that the odds on Kennedy tilted to the conservative side were about 70 percent.

MSNBC: “Justices aware of shift in national attitudes on same-sex marriage”
Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom talks about Tuesday’s arguments on Proposition 8 and describes the mood inside the court hearing.

Sacramento Bee: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled on Tuesday that the Lancaster City Council’s invocation policy is constitutional because it allows for the opening prayer to be said by any faith or religion. | Rubin v. City of Lancaster

San Francisco Appeal: One method of compensation might be to take San Francisco to court. Foti’s long-time lawyer, Katie Short of the Life Defense Legal Foundation, says that Forti can easily argue that his First Amendment rights are being violated.

Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy: At the oral argument today in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Justice Scalia repeatedly questioned Ted Olson on when same-sex marriage became unconstitutional. From the transcript . . .

CNN (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WPTV (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group.
“We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Mainline Media News (text of the chat at the link): Join a moderated discussion at 3 p.m. ET on Monday, March 25, about Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. Joining Bay Area News Group legal affairs writer Howard Mintz will be Byron Babione, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping defend Proposition 8 and supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and Christopher Stoll, a staff attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

OzarksFirst.com: “The big question going before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Supreme Court should impose a 50-state solution upon this entire country regarding the debate surrounding marriage,” says Austin Nimocks, with the Alliance Defending Freedom.

Audio here. Transcript here.

The Hill: A divided Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether the Constitution includes a right to same-sex marriage — and how broadly such a right would extend.

AP: South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson was expected to announce his retirement Tuesday, making the state the fifth where Democrats will have to defend a seat without an incumbent seeking re-election.

Austin R. Nimocks at Wall Street Journal (via Google): The Supreme Court is not the place to settle the country’s public-policy disputes. The court is not equipped to distill all of the competing concerns and interests over marriage into a comprehensive, nationwide policy.

Ken Klukowski at Breitbart: This would be an easy case with clear adherence to two constitutional principles. Prop 8 and DOMA would both be upheld. Now we’ll find out how those two principles fare before the nine justices currently on the Supreme Court. Part I is about Hollingsworth, and Part II is about Windsor.

Washington Post: Now, it seems not only possible but also likely that same-sex marriage will be legal, widespread and, frankly, mundane and that this will happen relatively soon. The Supreme Court must play a part in this civil rights triumph — and justices should not shrink from it.

NY Times Editorial: The court should avoid that kind of error in the same-sex-marriage cases. It should broadly declare that under the Constitution the right to marry applies equally to all couples, period, and that this principle applies to the federal government and every state.

Daily Mail: In short, the Supreme Court ought to allow the public – as a society – to decide the future of marriage. Why? Because marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces.

More information here.

SCOTUS Blog: Below are answers to questions about how the cases will unfold over the next three months . . . As with health care last year, the ruling almost certainly will come at the end of the court’s term. The last week of June looks to be historic one way or another.

Theodore Olson and David Boies at Wall Street Journal (via Google) . . . withholding marriage causes infinite and permanent stigma, pain and isolation. It denies gay men and lesbians their identity and their dignity; it labels their families as second-rate. That outcome cannot be squared with the principle of equality and the unalienable right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness that is the bedrock promise of America from the Declaration of Independence to the 14th Amendment, and the dream of all Americans. This badge of inequality must be extinguished.

Baptist Press: Afterward, a co-counsel for Prop 8′s supporters said they have been asking the same question as Scalia.”At what point in time did marriage, this cornerstone of civilization and the bedrock of our society, all of a sudden become unconstitutional? And we don’t believe obviously it ever has,” Austin Nimocks, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told Baptist Press. “We believe Americans have the constitutional right to uphold, support and defend marriage as it has always been. And so we certainly are hopeful that the Supreme Court agrees with us.”

Matthew J. Frank at NRO: So the official position of the United States, in the Supreme Court anyway–notwithstanding the blandishments of the president of the United States–is that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right in those states that have civil unions, but that it is an “open question” whether this is so anywhere else. It might or might not be a constitutional right in, say, Mississippi, but it certainly is one in California!

Tampa Bay Times (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” Austin Nimocks of the Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom said Sunday on CNN.

CNSNews: “Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing,” Olson said. “And if you — if a state prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct.

Ed Whelan at NRO: Some noteworthy question/comments by Justice Kennedy in the oral argument today:

KTLA 5 (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

WPTV.com (includes video): “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group.
“We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Fox2Now.com: “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process,” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

SCOTUS Blog provides a growing list of links here.

Fox 31 Denver (includes video): Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, ” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks said. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.”

Christian Institute: Alliance Defending Freedom, another group which supports traditional marriage, says gay marriage should not be imposed by the court. A spokesman said: “Californians and Congress voted for marriage, and the court should respect the freedom to affirm society’s fundamental building block. “Marriage between a man and a woman is a bedrock social institution that diverse cultures and faiths have honored throughout the history of Western Civilization. “The freedom of the people to affirm this vital institution should not be taken away.”

Howard Mintz of San Jose Mercury News via The Saratogian: Jim Campbell, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which backs Proposition 8, stresses the political battle over gay marriage is “at some point in the middle. … The Supreme Court should resist demands to prematurely end the national debate.”

One News Now: Attorney Jim Campbell with Alliance Defending Freedom: “The importance of these cases and what’s at stake is whether the people throughout this country can continue to affirm marriage as we’ve always known it as a union of a man and a woman – or whether a court, through legal decisions, will redefine marriage for all of society.” [more ]

MPRNews (includes audio): Those defending Proposition 8 point out that the citizens of California have twice, since 2000, voted to ban same-sex marriage. “We are claiming that the Supreme Court should not try to remove the decision on the future of marriage from the hands of the people, that the people are sovereign, that they do have a right to maintain marriage as one man and one woman,” says Austin Nimocks, counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the groups involved in defending Proposition 8.

Rich Lowry at National Review: By seeking a shortcut in the courts, supporters of gay marriage want to end debate through judicial fiat. In an amicus brief in the case, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty points out the consequences if traditional marriage is deemed irrational. Religious people and groups objecting to same-sex marriage will “face a wave of private civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws never intended for that purpose,” and they will be “penalized by state and local governments.” In other words, supporters of the exotic-sounding practice of “opposite-sex marriage” will be marginalized forevermore.

Clark S. Judge at Human Events: In Windsor, I counted 89 submissions, in Perry 100. I may have missed a few and I am only counting those since the Court said it would hear the cases. I am guessing that …

LA Times: “I think we are going to win this case,” Andy Pugno, lawyer for Proposition 8 campaign. “We definitely represented the winning case today and the justices asked good thoughtful questions and we were able to say everything that we wanted to get in front of the court today.”

More information here.

Claremont Institute Webinar Information here.

CBS video includes Austin R. Nimocks.

LifeSiteNews: The California Department of Education has revised the statewide recommended reading list for its 6.3 million K-12 students, adding roughly 40 titles focused on homosexuality or gender confusion.

Links and issue summary by SCOTUS Blog below. Hollingsworth v. Perry | Oral Argument at 10 am on Tuesday, March 26th Issue: (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage …

The Volokh Conspiracy has as series of posts discussing the issue: Jonathan Adler, Federalism and Proposition 8 Randy Barnett, From Whom or What is DOMA Defending Traditional Marriage? Sasha Volokh, More on DOMA and federalism Jonathan Adler, Why Does Federalism …

Sacramento Bee: All eyes will be on Sacramento’s own Justice Anthony M. Kennedy this week when the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in two important cases dealing with issues of fairness and equality under the law. These cases ask whether our Constitution allows same-sex relationships to be treated differently than their opposite-sex counterparts.

FACE the NATION (includes video): Austin Nimocks, part of the legal team defending California’s Proposition 8, said during a gay marriage panel earlier in the program that the debate is “too young” to be stifled by a nationwide decision. “That’s exactly what we don’t need when we see Americans of all walks of life, all different faiths and backgrounds, and creeds, engaging in the marriage debate,” Nimocks said. “President Obama said there are people of good will on both sides of the debate, and the last thing we need is to shut down the debate, have the Supreme Court redefine marriage for everybody, instead of letting us work through this question through our democratic institutions. That’s why we have them. “The Supreme Court is not a legislature,” Nimocks continued. “We have ballot boxes for a reason and we’re asking the Supreme Court not to interject itself in this question.”

The video is here.

How Appealing links to numerous reports and commentaries here.

SCOTUS Blog links to numerous reports and commentaries discussing the litigation.

AP: A look at potential outcomes for the Proposition 8 case and then for the case about DOMA . . .

Fox & Hounds Daily: (Editor’s Note: California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage has its day in court tomorrow when the United States Supreme Court takes up the case. CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, hosted a debate on the issue between California Attorney General Kamala Harris and vice president for Marriage Litigation at Alliance Defending Freedom, Austin Nimocks. A transcript of the debate follows.) Link to CNN video here.

NBC: A lesbian cousin of Chief Justice John Roberts will attend the landmark Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage and says she is confident he will see that gays deserve “dignity, respect, and equality under the law.”

CBS: “The big question going before the Supreme Court is whether or not the Supreme Court should impose a 50-state solution upon this entire country regarding the debate surrounding marriage,” Austin Nimocks with the Alliance Defending Freedom told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s about fundamentally altering society,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told CBS’ “Face the
Nation.”

CNN via WYFF4.com : “Our most fundamental right in this country is the right to vote and the right to participate in the political process, ” said Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian advocacy group. “We don’t need the Supreme Court to take that right away from Americans of good faith on both sides of this issue and impose its judicial solution,” Nimocks told CNN’s State of the Union. “We need to leave this debate to the democratic process, which is working.” | KSAT.com carries a related CNN video report that includes Austin R. NImocks.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys who are co-counsel in defense of California’s constitutional amendment protecting marriage will be available for media interviews at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday following oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry.

SCOTUS Blog: This is the first of two articles examining the arguments made in the Supreme Court’s two same-sex marriage cases by the “friends of the Court” — the amici who have filed written briefs, a lengthy list.  This article deals with the amici arguments in the case of California’s Proposition 8 ban on gay marriages,Hollingsworth v. Perry (12-144), to be heard at 10 a.m. on Tuesday.  Part II, to appear Monday, will cover the amici arguments on the federal Defense of Marriage Act case, United States v. Windsor (12-307), set for a hearing at 10 a.m. on Wednesday.